Back
V. SRINIVAS
N. Narsimha Reddy – Appellant
Versus
P. Ravindra Reddy – Respondent
JUDGMENT
These regular appeals under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure are directed against the decrees and common judgment in O.S.Nos.14 of 2005 and 27 of 2003 dated 04.04.2006 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool.
2. The appellant herein, before the trial Court, is the plaintiff and he filed both the appeals. The respondent herein is the defendant in both the suits. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff instituted the suits against defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,59,333/- and Rs.10,11,656/- with interest and costs basing on the promissory notes dated 01.01.2001 and 01.12.2000 respectively said to be executed by the defendant.
4. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the trial Court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings.
5. The case of the plaintiff/plaintiff in brief in the plaint in both the suits was as follows:
(i) On 01.12.2000, defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff by executing a promissory note and agree
(1) A Partner cannot file suit with regard to business transaction, except to seek rendering of accounts and dissolution of Partnership.(2) Pleadings – When evidence is not in line with pleadings and....
The court affirmed that promissory notes executed without consideration are unenforceable, especially when superseded by a valid memorandum of understanding.
The appellate court found the promissory note invalid due to lack of consideration and conflicting evidence, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.
The plaintiff's failure to disprove the defense taken by the defendant and the finding of the suit promissory note as not true and valid influenced the court's decision.
The admission of execution of a promissory note shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that no consideration was passed.
The validity of a promissory note is upheld when the burden of proof for coercion and lack of consideration is not met by the Defendants.
The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies once execution of the promissory note is established, placing the burden on the Defendant to rebut this pr....
The presumption of consideration under Section 118-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies unless disproven by the defendants.
The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof regarding the authenticity of a promissory note lies with the party alleging forgery, and the evidence must be evaluated on the preponderance of probabil....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
